Weird Science

When Anthony Fauci famously anthropomorphized science on Face the Nation, he was swiftly, and correctly, mocked. Fauci’s spiel had a strong flavor of hubris to it, and while he did not explicitly call himself the physical representation of science, he at least implied that he is the projection of it. Then again, in some ways, he is correct. If we ignore the part where he claims that criticizing him is “anti-science” while he laughs like a Bond villain, and instead, consider the cultural aspects of what he is saying, then the man has a point.

There are a lot of people that consider science as an ideological entity. We see it all the time when people post pictures of technological achievements with the label “I Love Science”. The label is there because people are equating the technology with science, and all too often, people equate scientists with science. Even people who should know better are apt to make this mistake and, unfortunately, it has created a scenario where people use weasel words like “anti-science” to attack those who simply ask questions.

Strangely, these types are becoming more common. In one of the more prescient Twitter threads to come out of the vaccination campaign, Saskatchewan Health Authorities’ Chief Medical Officer claimed that asking questions is a misinformation tactic and leads to bad science. I suspect that such absurdities rouse suspicion and distrust in the hearts of most people reading this article, but for those that believe in science as an ideology, our suspicion is the problem.

Susan Shaw Wear a Mask Save a Life @drsusanshaw

✅“Just asking questions” is an established misinfo tactic. Ask yourself what is the questioner trying to gain by creating such doubt & fear? Bad “science” exists & many pushing this are also pushing unproven & potentially harmful products

We would be failing to attend to our duties if we believed that the perversion of science began with the pandemic, and it would be an even larger mistake to believe that these perversions are not influencing aspects of government policy in subtle, but baffling, ways. They have influenced policy in the past, and they will in the future just due to the fact that anything claimed to be “backed by science” has a certain veneer to it. The term science itself has an intrinsic value for policy makers in that its’ flagrant application can fool both the public and, indeed, the policymakers who employ the term, into believing that which is not true.

Those fooled, of course, are rarely anti-science so much as they are, I would argue, over-educated and over-socialized.

On over-education, whether we are talking about the multiplication table or the literary arts, children are rewarded for memorization. Such was my own experience as, in English classes, my teachers taught me the structure of an essay (introduction, body, conclusion), gave me a list of transitional phrases, and then told me to reach an arbitrary word count. Writing by rote had the opposite effect in my case as when it came time to write, I could barely put a word on paper. In fact, school nearly destroyed my ability to write because it limited my ability to think. Thankfully, I gained the skill independently by arguing with internet trolls (they have their uses). I suspect my personal circumstances are not unique.

On over-socialization, sadly, we are living in an era where the perception of others has become a key measurement of success. I am certain those of you that have done any teaching are well-aware that asking questions or, worse, asking if students have any questions is often met with near silence. Did your lesson anticipate all possible combinations of questions that students may have or are they afraid of looking stupid in front of their peers?

Unfortunately, the socialization process rarely teaches children to be bold, unapologetic, and even controversial. These days, it seems that the socialization process is getting even more closed and is not limited to children. More and more, adults are being punished for saying anything even remotely out of the ordinary. Such punishments are reinforced by people like Anthony Fauci or Susan Shaw who claim that being critical and skeptical of the ordained truth is to be heretical.

Ordained truth, of course, does not make sense in the context of science. Science is ultimately the process of making observations and asking questions. Creating hypotheses, testing them, and usually throwing them out or modifying them. It’s a process that requires a mind free enough to remain skeptical when wrong and suspicious when right.

If, instead of viewing science as an ideological framework, we viewed science as a process, then people like Fauci and Shaw would be shunned instead of shunning people. Experts would be those that could themselves not just answer questions but ask questions — even questions of their own assumptions. And they would not be afraid of being wrong for fear of their legacy, peers, or the public. In such a world, the term misinformation would not exist, and conflicting information would be treated with due care and consideration. Calls for censorship would be scoffed at and alternative views sought out.

Instead, we have Anthony Fauci, the self-anointed representative of science. A weird, perverted version of science indeed.

“Every now and then, I’m lucky enough to teach a kindergarten or first-grade class. Many of these children are natural-born scientists — although heavy on the wonder side and light on skepticism.

They’re curious, intellectually vigorous. Provocative and insightful questions bubble out of them. They exhibit enormous enthusiasm. I’m asked follow-up questions. They’ve never heard of the notion of a ‘dumb question’.

But when I talk to high school seniors, I find something different. They memorize ‘facts’. By and large, though, the joy of discovery, the life behind those facts, has gone out of them.

They’ve lost much of the wonder, and gained very little skepticism. They’re worried about asking ‘dumb’ questions; they’re willing to accept inadequate answers; they don’t pose follow-up questions; the room is awash with sidelong glances to judge, second-by-second, the approval of their peers.”

— Carl Sagan